Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes_P&Z_07.02.2002 CITY OF GEORGETOWN, TEXAS PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION TUESDAY, JULY 2, 2002, 6:00 P.M. 101 EAST 7TH STREET, GEORGETOWN, TEXAS 78626 Members Preent: Marjorie Herbert, Chair; Richard Glasco, Vice-Chair; Chris Aadnesen; Audrey McDonald; Robert Seamans; John Kirby; Linda Turner. Staff Present: Amelia Sondgeroth, Director of Planning & Development Services; Bobby Ray, Chief Current Planner; David Munk, Development Engineer; John Aldridge, Systems Engineer Manager; Melissa McCollum, Development Planner; Steve O’Neal, Building Plan Reviewer; Trish Carls, City Attorney; Jim Babcock, Development Technician; Karen Frost, Administrative Manager/ Recording Secretary; Lee Einsweiler, Consultant for UDC. Regular Session – Meeting began at 6:02 p.m. (Commission may, at any time, recess the Regular Session to convene an Executive Session at the request of the Chair, a Commissioner, the Director or legal counsel for any purpose authorized by the Open Meetings Act, Texas Government Code Chapter 551.) 1. Action from Executive Session – No executive session. Consent Agenda 2. Consideration of the Minutes of the June 4, 2002, Regular Meeting of the Planning and Zoning Commission. Motion by Commissioner Aadnesen to approve the minutes of the June 4, 2002, Regular Meeting. Second by Commissioner Kirby. Approved 7-0. Regular Agenda 3. Consideration and possible action on a Public Hearing regarding the following policy issues associated with the Unified Development Code (UDC), Draft #1. (Chair Herbert states each item will be addressed separately. Those wishing to speak must submit a speaker form for each specific item that they wish to address). J. Identification / Directional Signs (UDC Section 10.3) Presentation by Lee Einsweiler. Discussion and questions by commissioners. Motion by Chair Herbert to recommend to City Council that Section 2 remain and that the section that allows weekend signs be deleted. Second by Commissioner Kirby. Approved 4-3. (Opposed by Aadnesen, Seamans and McDonald.) K. Off-premise Signs (UDC Section 10.4) Presentation by Lee Einsweiler. Mark Pustka – Austin/ Georgetown Village. States that he approves of off- premise signs, but staying out of the 25 foot site triangle in the right-of-way. Asks for determination on two-sided signs that are not mentioned in the Code. Questions by Commissioners. Motion by Chair Herbert to recommend to the City Council that this section be recommended with the following amendments: 1. Provide an exemption for single commercial developments on multiple lots to have off-premise multi-tenant and directional signage. 2. Modify the provision for off-premise subdivision directional signs to allow the subdivision/ complex name and direction only (no builders identification, no sales or lease information). 3. Maintain the prohibition against the location of subdivision location signs in the public right-of -way. Second by Commissioner Turner. Approved 6-1. (Opposed by Seamans.) L. Impervious Cover (UDC Section 11.2) Presentation by Amelia Sondgeroth. Greg Strmiska – 3345 Bee Caves Rd, Austin/ Bury-Partners. Suggests applying impervious coverage on a site by site basis rather than a lot by lot basis. Asks that parking not be tied to impervious cover calculations. Todd Janssen – Sun City Texas. Asks that if a lot-by-lot calculation is used, then in residential neighborhoods, the entire subdivision be used in the calculation, taking into account all parkland, ROW’s and streets. Questions by Commissioners. Amelia Sondgeroth explains gross calculation method and then determination per subdivision of calculation. Explains parkland is credited toward overall calculation. John Noell – 3660 Stoneridge, Austin/ Urban Design Group. States he thinks that impervious coverage should be driven by aesthetics instead of water quality. Don Martin – 3345 Bee Caves Rd, Austin. Gave examples of current impervious coverages and thinks this is a landowner and business owner issue, not a developer issue. Also states this issue should be based on aesthetics, not water quality. Thinks this should be in Zoning Ordinance not Subdivision Regulations. Scott Smiley – 4316 Shadow Oak Ln, Austin. States TNRCC provides water quality standards, not impervious coverage. Shows graph of TXX load versus impervious cover. Believes this provision in the Code will be very difficult to administer. Marvin Dorsey – 801 Fairview. Questions actual research to increase impervious coverage from 50% to 70%. States price of land in Georgetown makes this prohibitive to development due to taking an extra 20% of property to develop. Jack Hunnicutt – 26 Meadows End. States that impervious cover can actually lead to monotony, that was addressed in previous items. Asks for clarification of calculating method for gross and lot calculations. Iva McLachlan – 520 Wolf Rd. Disagrees with using impervious coverage to monitor water quality. Disagrees with provision that Director “may” increase impervious coverage. States this would affect Georgetown’s ability to offer affordable housing. Mary Ellen Kersch – 1903 E 19th St. States that impervious coverage will improve water quality. Suggests having a workshop with TNRCC and others without fiscal interest in Georgetown. Lee Einsweiler addresses the dual standard of zoning and subdivision regulations, stating that this is to cover the areas in the ETJ. Questions and deliberation by Commissioners. Motion by Chair Herbert that this section of the UDC be recommended to the City Council along with the following provisions: 1.There is credit for arterial and major collector streets as shown on the Thoroughfare Plan, in the gross calculation of the site impervious cover; 2. This way of calculating be addressed to sites of 5 acres or larger; and 3. That a workshop be held to look at the impact of TNRCC’s water quality protection and what scientific basis there is for the relationship between impervious cover and water quality. Second by Commissioner Turner. Approved 4-3. (Opposed by Aadnesen, Seamans, and McDonald.) Ten minute recess. When the meeting is reconvened, the Commission will proceed to Item #4 of the Regular Agenda. Meeting reconvened at 8:08 p.m. 4. Consideration and possible action on a Public Hearing for a Detailed Development Plan for 13.544 acres out of the Clement Stubblefield Survey and the Ruidoso Irrigation Survey, and vacation of a part of Lot 1, Block 4, part of Lots 6, 7 8, 9, and 10, Block 3, and part of Lot 6 and all of Lot 7, Block 2, Highland Park Revised to be known as the Georgetown Municipal Complex, located at 300 Industrial Boulevard. Presentation by Melissa McCollum. Aaron Pesek stated that he was the engineer for this project and available for questions. Questions by Commissioners. Motion by Chair Herbert to recommend to City Council approval of a Detailed Development Plan of 10.834 acres out of the Clement Stubblefield Survey and Ruidoso Irrigation Survey (now Lot 1, Block A, Georgetown Municipal Complex), to be known as the Georgetown Municipal Complex, located at 300 Industrial Boulevard, with approval of variances to the Subdivision Regulations to allow 1) more than one drive access point along Industrial Avenue; 2) fencing greater than 3 feet in height within the 25-foot front yard; 3) impervious cover within the 15-foot sideyard; and 4) encroachment of parking spaces within the 25-foot front yard, after making the required findings of fact. Second by Commissioner McDonald. Approved 7-0. After listening to the testimony presented at the Planning and Zoning Commission meeting, and reading the documentation provided by the applicant and the staff’s recommendation, the Commission makes the following findings of fact as required by the Subdivision Regulations: 1. The public convenience and welfare will be substantially served because the project is consistent with the desire of the City to maximize service efficiency by centralizing and co- locating related services on existing City-owned property whenever possible, and 2. The appropriate use of surrounding property will not be substantially or permanently impaired or diminished because the property is industrially zoned and the development of this extremely large tract will have less impact than if it had developed into the smallest potential industrial tracts, and 3. The applicant has not created the hardship from which relief is sought because the variances reflect the necessity of designing a functional and efficient facility around a number of pre-existing site constraints; and 4. The variances will not confer upon the applicant a special right or privilege not commonly shared or available to the owners of similar and surrounding property because circumstances surrounding a governmental development of this scope are not comparable within the community; and 5. The hardship from which relief is sought is not solely of an economic nature because the substantial renovation of an existing facility is not an effort to eliminate cost; and 6. The variance is not contrary to the public interest because it is creating an efficient co- location of related governmental services, seeks to reduce expenditure of general taxpayer funds, and seeks to provide appropriate infill development through creative site design, and 7. Due to special conditions, the literal enforcement of the ordinance would result in an unnecessary hardship in trying to provide an efficient design while also meeting aesthetic requirements set by ordinance; and 8. In granting the variance the spirit of the ordinance is observed and substantial justice is done. 5. Consideration and possible action on a Public Hearing for a Concept Plan for 100.9133 acres out of the David Wright Survey, known as the Liese Tract, located on FM 2338 (Williams Drive), with variances to the Subdivision Regulations. Staff Report was presented by Melissa McCollum. Bill Langenbahn – 433 Oak Crest Ln. Expressed concern about the traffic impact of this possible plan. Bill Chapman – 515 Riverview. Representing Faith Lutheran Church, stating that they do not feel Mr. Liese should have to meet all the provisions of the ordinance. Betty Liese – 1086 Booty Rd. States she thinks tree survey would be obsolete before it is ever used. States land use is entirely wildlife management use and that they are only separating a small portion of the land out for the church. Believes Serenada Drive extension would destroy wildlife habitat, old trees and Indian artifacts. States part of the extension would be crossed by the floodplain. Milton Liese – 1086 Booty Rd. Applicant states that this is a cumbersome policy. (Tape 2, side B, 260) Motion by Commissioner Aadnesen to recommend to City Council the approval of the Concept Plan for 100.9133 acres out of the David Wright Survey, known as the Liese Tract, located on FM 2338 (Williams Drive) subject to the provision of a tree survey for all areas that are not planned for use as residential or wildlife habitat and subject to the collector level street being shown as reflected in the Future Land Use and Thoroughfare Plan. Second by Commissioner Glasco. Approved 7-0. 6. Consideration and possible action on a Public Hearing for a Public Review Final Plat for 4.91 acres in the David Wright Survey, to be known as Faith Lutheran Church, PhaseTwo, located on FM Hwy 2338 (Williams Drive), with variances to the Subdivision Regulations. Staff Report was presented by Melissa McCollum. Thomas Hardt – 4305 Casa Blanca Drive. Represents Faith Lutheran congregation and is requesting the variance of the requirement to do the tree survey. Bill Chapman – 515 Riverview. States that he is negotiating with the Liese for the church. States this is the first non-residential property to use the 80000 series regulations of the Interim Ordinance. Questions the ability of the church to file a plat if the previous requirements of Mr. Liese are not met. Staff responds that the plat may not be filed until the tree survey is completed and the draft road is included on the plat. Motion by Commissioner Aadnesen to recommend to City Council the approval of the Public Review Final Plat for 4.91 acres in the David Wright Survey, to be known as Faith Lutheran Church, Phase Two, and located on FM Hwy 2338 (Williams Drive) subject to the provision of a tree survey for the area being platted, prior to recordation. Second by Commissioner Seamans. Approved 6-1. (Opposed by Kirby.) It was then realized that a speaker had been skipped. He was called back in and given the opportunity to address the Commissioners. Jim Cummins – 1978 S. Austin Ave./ Acting Agent for Faith Lutheran Church. He stated that in his experience that putting a street on the concept plan indicates the owner can be held “hostage” to place the road on the property. He further states the tree survey is an fiscal hardship for both Mr. Liese and the church. He states that the intent of the interim ordinance Section 80000 was written with language to allow special consideration of cases like this one. Motion by Commissioner Seamans for the Commission to revote on Item 5. Second by Commissioner Kirby. Denied 3-4. (Opposed by Aadnesen, Turner, Herbert & McDonald.) Motion by Commissioner Seamans for the Commission to revote on Item 6. Second by Commissioner Kirby. Denied 2-5. (Opposed by Aadnesen, Turner, Herbert, McDonald, Glasco.) 7. Consideration and possible action on a Public Hearing for a Rezoning from A, Agricultural to RP, Residential Planned, or more restrictive district for a 29.90 acre tract in the Burrell Eaves, the Frederick Foy, and the Daniel Monroe Surveys, to be known as Sun City Georgetown, Neighborhood Thirty-Four, located along Sun City Boulevard. Staff Report presented by Bobby Ray. Todd Janssen, applicant representative stated that there has been a slight adjustment to 5 lot sizes, increasing those lot sizes and then deleting 4 other lots. Motion by Commissioner Aadnesen to recommend to the City Council the approval of the rezoning from A, Agricultural to R-P, Residential Planned, or more restrictive district for 29.90 acre tract in the Burrell Eaves, the Frederick Foy, and the Daniel Monroe Surveys, to be known as Sun City Georgetown, Neighborhood Thirty-Four, located along Sun City Boulevard. Second by Commissioner McDonald. Approved 7-0. 8. Consideration and possible action on a Public Hearing for a Public Review Final Plat for 86.708 acres out of the Burrell Eaves Survey, to be known as Sun City Georgetown, Neighborhood 14 A and B, and located on Sun City Boulevard. Staff Report presented by Melissa McCollum. Todd Janssen, applicant representative gave pictorial history of this particular neighborhood. Carol Evans – 211 Scurry Pass. Stated that residents did not feel they had enough notification to fight this and that they were promised a tree line view that appeared to be going away. Mr. Janssen addressed Ms. Evan’s statements. Hiroshi Sakahara – 215 Scurry Pass. States tree line and green belt will be only pasture land. Requesting denial of this application. K.C. McAndrew – 213 Scurry Pass. States he paid $27,000 extra for a lot on the greenbelt and deserves further consideration. Commission questions and comments. Motion by Commissioner Seamans to recommend to City Council the approval of the Public Review Final Plat for 86.708 acres out of the Burrell Eaves Survey, to be known s Sun City Georgetown, Neighborhood 14A and B, and located on Sun City Boulevard, provided the Technical Issues are addressed prior to City Council. Second by McDonald. Approved 7-0. 9. Consideration and possible action on a Public Hearing for Rezoning a total of 86.708 acres, out of the Burrell Eaves Survey, being 34.55 acres, from A, Agricultural to RP, Residential Planned, or more restrictive district, and 52.153 acres, from RP, Residential Planned, to RP, Residential Planned Revised, or more restrictive district, to be known as Sun City Georgetown, Neighborhood 14 A and B, and located on Sun City Boulevard. Staff Report presented by Melissa McCollum. Todd Janssen, applicant representative stated that 5 foot width was added on 5 lots and that four lots were lost. Motion by Commissioner Glasco to recommend to City Council approval of the Rezoning a total of 86.708 acres, out of the Burrell Eaves Survey, being 34.555 acres, from A, Agricultural to RP, Residential Planned Revised, or more restrictive district, to be known as Sun City Georgetown, Neighborhood 14 A and B, and located on Sun City Boulevard. Second by Commissioner Turner. Approved 7-0. 10. Consideration and possible action for a Rezoning of 5.00 acres, out of the Chaparro Estates, Lot 3, from A, Agricultural to C-2A, Commercial First Height, or more restrictive district, to be known as Georgetown Interstate Transmission, located on the east side of Williams Drive (FM 2338) north of Sedro Trail. Staff Report presented by Bobby Ray. Applicant, Joe Kay explains his situation. Chair questions if he knew zoning of this property before purchasing. Applicant stated he did. J.C. Tunnicliffe – 211 Sedro Trail. States he opposes this use because of possible residual damage to his well. George Peak – 243 Red Poppy Trail. Agrees with staff that this request should be denied. Stated he has observed current business on IH-35 and thinks that is inappropriate for Williams Drive. Joe Hanneken – 237 Red Poppy Trail. States opposition to this request. Applicant responds that TNRCC tests and does not allow run-off into the soil from his business. Motion by Commissioner Seamans to recommend to City Council denial of requested Rezoning of 5.00 acres, out of the Chaparro Estates, Lot 3, from A, Agricultural to C2A, Commercial First Height, or more restrictive district, located on the est side of Williams Drive (FM 2338) north of Sedro Trail. Second by Commissioner McDonald. Approved 7-0. 11. Request for Approval of Access to allow an additional driveway on San Gabriel Village Boulevard for San Gabriel Village, Section Two, Phase 2, to be known as Waters Edge Apartments IV, located on San Gabriel Village Boulevard. Staff Report presented by Melissa McCollum. Applicant agent, John Noell, makes presentation requesting axtra driveway cut. Applicant, Larry Peel explains tree survey and life safety issues if denied. Co-applicant, Don Martin discusses that driveway is not on original plat. Motion by Commissioner Aadnessen to recommend to City Council approval of access to allow an additional driveway on San Gabriel Village Boulevard for San Gabriel Village, Section Two, Phase 2, to be known as Waters Edge Apartments IV, located on San Gabriel Village Boulevard. Second by Commissioner Seamans. Approved 6-1. (Herbert opposed.) Discussion of postponement of this meeting until another date. Review of calendars. A Public Hearing for the remainder of the UDC will be held at 6:30 p.m. on Wednesday, July 24, 2002. This meeting will be posted. Motion by Commissioner Turner to adjourn. Second by Commissioner Seamans. Meeting adjourned at 10:37 p.m.